Posted by MikeT23 on 11/30/2017 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/29/2017 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):
I really don't think a vast number of people join to coach a D3 school. They accept that dues must be paid. But they tend to think a winning record at D3 U then D2 State could qualify them for D1 crap. Eventually they figure out it's a 5-6 season process. A year. In today's world, where 3 minutes on 1 subject is considered a long time, a year to coach a crappy D1 is a lifetime.

Shorten it but why get someone to D1 if he can't even make the nt at d2?

Because D1 is 1/3, if that, full?

The journey made sense when every world had 500-600 people in it. It doesn't now. You guys like updates, right?

Yep, less than 24 hours ago.

My eyes glaze over after 3 pages of this crap. Which was probably 3 pages more than I should have read of a topic entitled “Fork This New Recruiting” or whatever it is.

Anyway, you have a second.

It's not complicated.

Send out a survey to every current HD user and ask questions about the game. Get a real feel for what the users are thinking and what they want. It gives the non forum users a voice as well.

Analyze the results and make an educated decision on how to proceed. If 90% of people say that the job process sucks well then it probably sucks and needs to be changed immediately.

They will address it soon after the champions page has been updated

Posted by shoe3 on 11/30/2017 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Since no new arguments have been made, I’ll go ahead and rehash, too. I can’t prove it scientifically, because unlike Benis, I do not send people an exit interview when they leave. But I am pretty confident that the number 1 reason people that should like complex-competitive-fantasy-dynasty-sports-sims stop playing HD (or decline to start) is forced stratification; the amount of time and money it takes for them to get to the level they have in mind when deciding maybe they would enjoy a college basketball recruiting/coaching simulation. There’s no good reason to have 3 levels, and only barely a decent argument to be made for having 2. There’s definitely nothing user friendly about forcing people to spend at least 7-8 seasons at programs they would otherwise never care about or invest in before they can even qualify for low D1 jobs. I’d just let people start at D level D1 schools, if they want. And for C+ and under baseline prestige teams, I’d make the hiring process choose the best human applicant, and just remove any underlying experience or success requirements.

The biggest mistake made in the 3.0 rollout was not fixing hiring along with everything else, IMO.

TL,DR for Mike: Fix hiring and/or let people start at low D1.

this, 100%.

I've also been saying this for at least a year at this point. let people start at low D1, at a school they've actually heard of. IMO this is the best possible simple change that could be tried to attract and retain new users. yep, we can force people to walk uphill both ways for a year just 'cause that's what we had to do, but doing so is stubborn and stupid. there is no difference between a new user "forking" up in low D1 than in D3. the stakes aren't any different, and D1 recruiting ends up working so differently from D3 anyway. i think it's spud that always argues this is a bad idea, because you're feeding minnows to sharks, but there are sharks at every level so this argument holds no water. if you exclude conferences with prestige above C, any new user starting at D1 is guaranteed a slate of easy conference games to learn from.

i don't play D3 at all so it's easy for me to say this, but what's the point? user #s are so low, teams are so lopsided. delete D3.

Posted by Benis on 11/30/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
It's not complicated.

Send out a survey to every current HD user and ask questions about the game. Get a real feel for what the users are thinking and what they want. It gives the non forum users a voice as well.

Analyze the results and make an educated decision on how to proceed. If 90% of people say that the job process sucks well then it probably sucks and needs to be changed immediately.

It's probably a little more complicated than that.

You, myself, mully, shoe(as we've all posted on this page alone) have very strong opinions on 3.0. I know mine are based on 1.0 vs 3.0. I'm not rational and I'm also trying to recall an internet game I played in 2007. I know I loved the game then I hated it. Anything "plant a flag" based is going to turn me off. mully has been very vocal about the parts of 3.0 he hates. I'm assuming he enjoyed 2.0 much more. Therefore, "probabilities" in recruiting aren't going to be his thing. You and shoe have similar, yet varying degrees different, opinions like me/mully.

We're the people who are going to respond. The "It's fine with me" people are not going to waste the time. If the game changes, and they don't like it, they move on without a word.

I have no idea why you continue to insist the vocal minority knows best.

When did I say the vocal minority knows best?

I just said to go get the feedback from the quiet majority.

Well no matter what we all prefer, until WIS shows that they are even looking at this game I think numbers will continue to dwindle. Still waiting for that huge promotional campaign!

so bored right now I’d even watch one of wardos videos.

Having a limited and select “focus group” representing various levels of experience, success, and gameplay preferences would probably be a much better source of information than a broad survey. I believe Mike and mully both have expressed something along these lines in the past, so we’re already heading toward a quorum.

As a whole, I think the quiet majority is fine with the game.

The problem with that is the "majority" in all of Smith is NOW down to 257 users.... (or less if multiple IDs).

So you are saying its fine when we are down to 50 customers that are all happy with the game?

#2 - "fine with the game" could still mean there are flaws the users want fixed to improve satisfaction and entice those users to get their friends playing.

I don't think it's "fine". I just don't think you'll get anywhere near a consensus if all 257 users responded. More likely, 57 users respond and that's 20%. What the hell do you do when 20% respond? It's just mental masturbation.

That's what these forums are all about!!

Agreed. But benis wants a formal survey for mental masturbation. That's even more pointless and will lead to "They sent us a goddam survey 9 days ago and no changes yet. SEBLE!?!?!!?!?!?"

Ah yes, mental masturbation for reaching out to a current consumer of your product to get their feedback.

Whoaaaaaa CRAZZZYYY maaaaan.

As a general rule, the most vocal is the most unhappy. I get "Would you take a survey to tell us about your shopping experience today?" from my liquor/beer store all the time. I go there to buy alcohol. They sell it. I don't take the survey. Now, if they stopped stocking the alcohol I like, I'd tell them all about it.